First Class Attitude

Fuck You Very Much Joel Ferguson. The Co-Chair of Hillary’s Michigan Campaign (in a state they pledged not to campaign in) and superdelegate if Michigan is seated had this to say:

“”Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” Ferguson said. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.””

Good God Almighty how overtly dismissive can they possibly get?






112 replies
  1. 1
    J sub D says:

    Sniff, sniff. Animals and cynics can smell desperation. It’s all about winning ain’t it, Hillary? Did you here that Kansans? You are not real Demorats.

  2. 2

    I guess he means that all those states like CA and NY won’t go Blue if Obama is the nominee? Or does he imply that Democrats should not compete in all 50 states this Fall? Difficult to understand people when they talk with their hands around their throat.

  3. 3
    TR says:

    “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”

    You know, the Clinton should really stress that argument as they ask for votes in Texas.

  4. 4
    TR says:

    That should read “the Clinton *campaign*”

  5. 5
    zzyzx says:

    Yeah, barring an upset tomorrow, I’m really thinking we’re seeing the last throes of this campaign.

    Please please PLEASE let it be over by 3/5!

  6. 6

    “Never”? That’s the wrong attitude in the Democratic party these days.

    If Joel Ferguson keeps that up, he’ll be lucky to get the role of the magic talking taco in “The Terry McCauliffe Story.”
    .

  7. 7
    demkat620 says:

    It’s almost like they are running for Asshole-in Chief not Commander-in-Chief. “Let’s see how many people in the party we can piss off. We’re not gonna win but we can sure as shit rip the party in two on our way out the door.”

    Disgusting people.

  8. 8
    crw says:

    Way to keep the eye on the ball there, ol’ Ferguson boy. Insult supporters of Democratic ideas who are doing the footwork to win hearts and minds over to progressive ideas in flyover country. That’s a great idea. Instead of trying to actually broaden the progressive movement, lets write a huge swath of the country off as ignorant hicks and shoot for a continuation of the 50+1% stalement. Awesome long term thinking there.

  9. 9
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    I like Hillary. She was the best thing about Bill. If she’s elected, I want to have sex with her in the Oval Office. But, besides her dreadful Iraq vote, her campaign just doesn’t understand what Howard Dean, Great Orange Satan Kos, and Obama are doing in terms of revitalizing the Democratic Party. You realize Montana has two Dem Senators, a Dem Governor, and a Dem Legislature. One of Idaho’s two House seats, and maybe even the Senate seat, are in play this year. I am just so tired of the small-horizon Democrats. Not only do they give up on the red states without even trying, they bring the same despair to every contest they enter: veto, filibuster, etc.

  10. 10

    her campaign just doesn’t understand what Howard Dean, Great Orange Satan Kos, and Obama are doing

    Heh! Princess Myiq2xu thinks I AM the Great Orange Satan.

    I control all systems!

    RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK, RED JACK
    .

  11. 11
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Hillary does so have a Fifty State Strategy: she’s going to piss off Democrats in all fifty states.

  12. 12
    cleek says:

    Or does he imply that Democrats should not compete in all 50 states this Fall?

    she has a 12-state strategy. fuck all the rest.

  13. 13
    TheFountainHead says:

    I get the feeling that the Hillary Campaign is having trouble getting their message out, because if they were disseminating it correctly, there would be far fewer people willing to vote for her.

  14. 14
    zsa says:

    If she’s elected, I want to have sex with her in the Oval Office.

    Okay. I’ll start making the arrangements.

    Um, you do know there’s a waiting list, right?

  15. 15
    bootlegger says:

    Here’s an interesting fact ignored by the Clintonian argument that Barack only wins Red states: Hilary only wins the rural counties. She consistently loses in the major cities which, wait for it, always vote Democrat, even in Red states. So if anyone is based in Red Heaven it is Blondie.

  16. 16
    Zifnab says:

    I get the feeling that the Hillary Campaign is having trouble getting their message out, because if they were disseminating it correctly, there would be far fewer people willing to vote for her.

    I have no idea who is running her campaign anymore. Karl Rove got his gig at FOX right? He’s not just wearing a Mark Penn mask and hiding under Clinton’s desk, whispering her bad advice is he? As far as campaign meltdowns go, this is becoming really one for the record books. I can almost see 9ui11iani sitting back and taking notes on this, just to find out how he could have lost a little harder.

  17. 17
    Gryn says:

    Has a campaign really devolved to the point of the “Who’s a real Scotsman?” argument.

    The stupid has now reached critical mass.

  18. 18

    To repeat a point from Andrew J. Lazarus (except for the Oval Office fantasies, yug): if we need any more proof that the Hillary Campaign is moribund is that:

    (1) they speciously trying to convince the under-informed voters that her inevitability is intact because it depends what the definition of inevitable (and ‘undefeated’) is… it’s winning “blue” states. To swallow this line of malarkey, you need to believe that there are red/blue states (a distinctively 90s era piece of nonsense), and that the red/blue definition rests on how the vote went in 2004. Naturally, this ignores the fact that in November most states have other people in the party running as well – for gov., senate, house, state legislature, etc. The Clinton camp has just given a big ‘screw-you’ to those people.

    (2) If Hillary’s people keep this crap up, they will find that the super-delegates – who are the ignored nobodies who run in November along with the presidential candidate – will not want to support somebody who actively tells them to go to hell. Either one side of the Clinton machine is not talking to the other side – i.e. the super-delegate shmoozers should hate this line of BS – or the Clintons are in a tailspin and hoping for a Obama catastrophe. Paging Sirhan Sirhan?

  19. 19
    crw says:

    OT: CNN now has Texas as a dead heat.

    Next up for the campaign:
    TexasPennsylvania and Ohio are our must win states, and always have been.

  20. 20
    Ugh says:

    How about this: the Clinton camp has realized they can’t win the general election against McCain, so they’re actively pissing off potential Democratic primary voters in the hopes that they lose the primary, thus giving them a shot at the nomination in 2012 (Obama loses general) or 2016 (Obama wins general) – which would be utterly lost if Clinton wins the primary but loses the general election.

    Alternatively, they just idiots.

  21. 21
    Jon H says:

    Can Clinton transfer her campaign funds to her Senate campaign accounts?

    Maybe her strategy is to slowly drive her campaign into the ground, while continuing to raise funds, rather than dropping out early.

    Then she could transfer any leftover funds to her Senate campaign coffers.

    Alternately, maybe she’s doing this to extend the fundraising because the campaign is deep in debt, to herself and other creditors.

  22. 22
    D-Chance. says:

    “”Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” Ferguson said. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”“

    “Second-class delegates”? And what percentage of African-Americans supports Obama… and how many of them will be delegates, some from red-state caucuses? I thought Clinton’s campaign had already had this little lecture about Codespeak. Guess they didn’t take it to heart… second-class delegate, indeed… what vile racists the Clintoniods continue to be.

  23. 23
    zzyzx says:

    Alternately, maybe she’s doing this to extend the fundraising because the campaign is deep in debt, to herself and other creditors.

    I doubt she’s making a profit right now since she is running ads and stuff. Texas is a pretty expensive state.

    “Second-class delegates”? And what percentage of African-Americans supports Obama… and how many of them will be delegates, some from red-state caucuses? I thought Clinton’s campaign had already had this little lecture about Codespeak. Guess they didn’t take it to heart… second-class delegate, indeed… what vile racists the Clintoniods continue to be.

    I think that’s a stretch. There are other, better reasons to hate that statement without going for the coded racism.

  24. 24
    Jon H says:

    Who does a delegate have to blow to be a first-class delegate?

    Nevermind, the question answers itself.

  25. 25
    TheFountainHead says:

    So I went over to Hillaryis44.com today again (I know, I know, but it’s WAY better than trolling RedState) and the latest meme among that little crowd is this piece of gold:

    Sorry, I think he is too cleaver by half. I think he lied about the drug use. I’ve always thought that. He’s winning youth vote based on that.

    So, the youth vote doesn’t count because they only vote for the guy who did drugs like they did. Damn druggies and their non-logical, lack-of-critical-thinking-skills ways!!

  26. 26
    Shygetz says:

    I think it’s no more of a stretch to racism than “periodically” is a stretch to sexism. And yet one gets made a huge issue of, and the other does not. I wonder why?

  27. 27
    KG says:

    So, when it comes to drugs, pot brownies no longer count?

    Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

  28. 28
    myiq2xu says:

    Heh! Princess Myiq2xu thinks I AM the Great Orange Satan.

    No, I said you were blogwhoring for the Great Orange Satan.

  29. 29
    libarbarian says:

    “”Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” Ferguson said. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”“

    Could someone explain something to me.

    IIRC, in a lot of these “red-state caucuses” the Democrat caucus turnout dwarfed the Republican caucus turnout. I know its not a completely representative sample, but doesn’t it least call into question the notion that they are guaranteed to vote Republican?

  30. 30
    crw says:

    Sorry, I think he is too cleaver by half. I think he lied about the drug use. I’ve always thought that. He’s winning youth vote based on that.

    That’s the next meme? He’s too clean to have done drugs, so he must be making it up to burnish his street cred? You have got to be shitting me. Also, damn you Scott BeauchampBarack Obama!

  31. 31
    p.lukasiak says:

    13,000 more Idahoans supported Obama than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses, and as a result Obama was awarded 12 more delegates than Clinton. Bush beat Kerry by 38.12 points in 2004. Idaho has 4 electoral college votes.

    111,000 more New Jerseyans supported Clinon than Obama in the New Jersey primaries, and as a result Clinton was awarded 11 more delegates than Obama. Kerry beat Bush by 6.69 points in 2004. New Jersey has 15 electoral college votes.

    For Kerry to have won Idaho’s 4 electoral college votes, 27.9% of Bush voters would have had to vote for Kerry.

    For Bush to have won New Jersey 15 electoral college votes, 6.3% of Kerry voters would have had to vote for Bush.

    Nevertheless, the will of Idaho caucus goers will trump that of New Jersey voters in the delegate count. That’s all fine and good, in a close race where neither candidate gets the necessary majority of pledged delegates. Those were, after all, the rules.

    But the super-delegates have a lot more at stake in keeping New Jersey primary voters happy than they do in keeping Idaho caucus goers happy.

    And while it may be inelegant to put it in precisely this fashion, Idaho delegates should be considered “second class citizens” when it comes time for the superdelegates to determine who the nominee will be.

  32. 32
    DougJ says:

    I’m waiting to see how Bob Somerby and Paul Krugman defend this one.

  33. 33
    wobbly says:

    Saw some interesting discussions of this totally irrelevant crap at http://prisonerofstarvation.blogspot.com/

    Two “Anonymous” posters actually thinking about the implications of this media driven horror show…

    VERSUS

    democracy. Now that we’ve all chosen our candidates, I guess it doesn’t matter much to anyone that a hundred Afghans were blown to smithereens…yesterday.

    And this is the good war?

  34. 34

    IIRC, in a lot of these “red-state caucuses” the Democrat caucus turnout dwarfed the Republican caucus turnout. I know its not a completely representative sample, but doesn’t it least call into question the notion that they are guaranteed to vote Republican?

    It certainly means that the Democratic base is more excited than the Republican base, and it could translate into tougher battles in those states, which means the Republicans wil have fewer resources to move into swing states. Hell, Mississippi could be in play this year, what with Musgrove leading the ticket for the Senate seat.

  35. 35
    Davebo says:

    And while it may be inelegant to put it in precisely this fashion, Idaho delegates should be considered “second class citizens” when it comes time for the superdelegates to determine who the nominee will be.

    OK, so where does this formula leave Texas delegates?

  36. 36
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I’m with you on the “last throes” idea. At this point they’re sticking their head in the sand. “You can’t see me if I can’t see you, and you don’t count if I say you don’t count”

    I’m not going to count Hillary out yet, mainly because I’m an unskilled observer… but I’m largely committed to the view that the Clinton campaign has lost traction and thus is panicking. It might be fun to watch this, but I am *so* nervous that one of these stupid memes will stick.

  37. 37
    Zifnab says:

    No, I said you were blogwhoring for the Great Orange Satan.

    So you think Kos is pimping him out? Listen, myiq, /insert Hillary Clinton don’t-be-mean-to-my-baby-girl rant about Chelsea here/.

    DKos has been plugging John Cole’s site on and off for the last six months via random links and hat tips. I wouldn’t be surprised if John has more regular readers sent his way by Markos than by any other source. On the flip side, with millions of unique hits a day, Dkos really doesn’t need anyone to flash ankle for traffic on a comparatively smaller blog.

    All that said, why you guys gotta be hate’n, yo. Can’t we all just get along? Here, myiq, come. Sit with us. I promise you, the bench only looks like a pony.

  38. 38
    Zifnab says:

    OK, so where does this formula leave Texas delegates?

    Everyone keeps asking that question. No one ever gets an answer.

  39. 39

    p. luk:

    Obama isn’t Kerry. McCain and the Republican party circa ’08 are not the Bush/Rove Republicans of 2004. The simple fact that Democratic turnout has shattered records at every step should tell you something. Many of these states’ former Republicans are willing to vote Democratic, even in a primary. If they are so likely to switch and vote for John McCain, why not do so?

    Here in Houston I have yet to meet a McCain supporter or see a single bumper sticker for him. I’m not saying there aren’t Republicans here, but they are unusually willing to buck their party this year. They are also definitely not willing to defend their party with the same fervor they once did.

  40. 40
    Davebo says:

    Everyone keeps asking that question. No one ever gets an answer.

    Well what are we blue Texans to think? Our vote counts, so long as we vote correctly?

  41. 41
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    God damn I’m pissed I missed the deadline for registering, but I honestly believed that it would all be over by the time they got here. I was iffy on the MUP for a long time, but damned if the Clinton campaign isn’t actively driving me in that direction.

    I think there’s a possibility, admittedly slim, that Texas could actually be in play this time around, and the Clinton campaign appears committed to punting it.

    And as someone above pointed out, this is a perfect example of the 51% mindset at work. It may win the next election, but it’s a hell of a way to govern.

  42. 42
    Davebo says:

    Here in Houston I have yet to meet a McCain supporter or see a single bumper sticker for him.

    I was noticing that as I searched political contributions for my zip code. I live in Memorial which while strongly Republican, isn’t strongly wingnut religious right republican.

    But I just don’t see a lot of love around either through contributions or signs/bumper stickers for the straight talker.

  43. 43
    Kevin K. says:

    I don’t care what the Clinton camp says or does, because Hillary is inspirational and we can’t afford to take a chance on Obama. She’s making our dreams come true.

  44. 44
    p.lukasiak says:

    OK, so where does this formula leave Texas delegates?

    actually, as I’ve said previously (i think it was a thread here, but I’m not sure) Texas is not important. But in fact, I may have been wrong about that.

    The thing about texas is that for 3 of the last 4 elections, a Texas Republican was running for president — either george sr., or george, jr. In the one election where a Texan wasn’t running (1996), Bill Clinton lost to Bob Dole by slightly under 5 points (4.96406, to be precise). In fact, in 2004, the Bush-Kerry margin was 22.86 points — in other words, far less than Idaho’s 38.12%, and that is with Bush’s ‘home field’ advantage.

    Texas, in other words, is a place where Democrats should devote resources, in order to force the GOP to spend resources there to hold the state. (in that sense, its much like states such as Indiana and Tennessee — its stupid to ignore these states, because if Dems devote resources to these states, and the GOP doesn’t, the Dems could win them. This forces the GOP to spend time and money in these states, leaving less for them to spend in states that the Democrats REALLY want.)

    Texas isn’t a crucial state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida — but neither is it a state that should be ignored like Idaho or Utah.

  45. 45
    p.lukasiak says:

    Tom, re: your 5:38 post above…

    I agree that the Texas vote should not be ignored. see my 5:57 post for my reasoning

  46. 46
    zsa says:

    A huge chunk of the superdelegates are Congress-critters and various Democratic officeholders. Many of them will be on the ballot with the nominee.

    They aren’t going to vote according to “what’s fair”, or “the will of the people”, or “Bill Clinton called me personally”. They’re going to vote for whoever has the longest coattails.

    And that’s Obama, baby. He’s got people excited.

  47. 47
    Pan American says:

    CNN may have it even but considering Barack’s edge with very likely voters and the 1/3 caucus portion it ain’t lookin’ good for Team Clinton.

    The campaign told Ed Rendell in PA there was no money for mailers.

    The 2010 census is going to shift EV’s away from the Democratic 50%+1 states. The map has to be expanded.

  48. 48
    chopper says:

    IIRC, in a lot of these “red-state caucuses” the Democrat caucus turnout dwarfed the Republican caucus turnout. I know its not a completely representative sample, but doesn’t it least call into question the notion that they are guaranteed to vote Republican?

    that depends on whether hillary won the state or not. if so, then yes. if not, then it’s a throwaway.

  49. 49
    Zifnab says:

    actually, as I’ve said previously (i think it was a thread here, but I’m not sure) Texas is not important. But in fact, I may have been wrong about that.

    The thing about texas is that for 3 of the last 4 elections, a Texas Republican was running for president—either george sr., or george, jr. In the one election where a Texan wasn’t running (1996), Bill Clinton lost to Bob Dole by slightly under 5 points (4.96406, to be precise). In fact, in 2004, the Bush-Kerry margin was 22.86 points—in other words, far less than Idaho’s 38.12%, and that is with Bush’s ‘home field’ advantage.

    Texas, in other words, is a place where Democrats should devote resources, in order to force the GOP to spend resources there to hold the state. (in that sense, its much like states such as Indiana and Tennessee—its stupid to ignore these states, because if Dems devote resources to these states, and the GOP doesn’t, the Dems could win them. This forces the GOP to spend time and money in these states, leaving less for them to spend in states that the Democrats REALLY want.)

    Texas isn’t a crucial state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida—but neither is it a state that should be ignored like Idaho or Utah.

    I think with Obama at the head of the ticket, even Texas can fall to the Democrats in ’08. And what an election that would be. Nothing says “mandate” like a clean sweep of the electoral college. Obama would be the next Nixon or Reagen. He’d be unstoppable as a political force.

  50. 50
    chopper says:

    13,000 more Idahoans supported Obama than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses, and as a result Obama was awarded 12 more delegates than Clinton. Bush beat Kerry by 38.12 points in 2004. Idaho has 4 electoral college votes.

    why are you concentrating on 2004? i mean, look at montana in 2004 vs today. different times. the dems have much more momentum and better candidates.

  51. 51
    Gemina13 says:

    I was leaning towards Obama after Edwards left the race; after this latest round of bullshit, Hillary can forget my vote. I’ve never seen anyone self-destruct so fast since Dukakis went for a joyride in a tank.

  52. 52
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Nothing says “mandate” like a clean sweep of the electoral college.

    Ignoring the cleanliness of the sweep, because it’s not really that clean, it would be funny if New Hampshire was painted as ignorant to the “mandate”. It would be said the NH “couldn’t think clearly” because they had to vote too early before the “true qualities” of the candidates were displayed.

    And MI and FL would look _so_ stupid for trying to move up.

  53. 53
    Davebo says:

    Texas, in other words, is a place where Democrats should devote resources, in order to force the GOP to spend resources there to hold the state. (in that sense, its much like states such as Indiana and Tennessee—its stupid to ignore these states, because if Dems devote resources to these states, and the GOP doesn’t, the Dems could win them. This forces the GOP to spend time and money in these states, leaving less for them to spend in states that the Democrats REALLY want.)

    Texas isn’t a crucial state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida—but neither is it a state that should be ignored like Idaho or Utah.

    I get it from a real politik stand point, but not from a real stand point.

    Why don’t we at least attempt to win alls states? And what message are you sending Democrats in Texas, Idaho and Utah?

  54. 54
    p.lukasiak says:

    The campaign told Ed Rendell in PA there was no money for mailers.

    there will be after March 4. There is a HUGE time gap before and after the PA primary… after march 4, there is only Wyoming (march 8) and Mississippi (march 11)…then NOTHING until PA votes (by itself) on April 22, then NOTHING again (except guam on May 3) until May 6 (Indiana, North Carolina).

    (As a Pennsylvania resident, I’m not looking forward to being “Iowa-ized” by the campaigns and the media, btw…)

  55. 55
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Ignoring the cleanliness of the sweep, because it’s not really that clean, it would be funny if New Hampshire was painted as ignorant to the “mandate”. It would be said the NH “couldn’t think clearly” because they had to vote too early before the “true qualities” of the candidates were displayed.

    And MI and FL would look so stupid for trying to move up.

    I would like to take this time to wholly apologize for my previous remarks. They were insensitive, and perhaps could be construed as sexist.

    It was boneheaded of me to consider using the word _mandate._ I should have used the more-accepted word _persondate._ Please understand that my poor choice of words was only that, and I do not wish to denigrate women nor womandates.

    Thank you.

  56. 56
    tBone says:

    Texas isn’t a crucial state like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida—but neither is it a state that should be ignored like Idaho or Utah.

    What state do you live in? I’m going to start ignoring it in the vain hope that I won’t have to read any of your bullshit electoral math anymore.

  57. 57
    p.lukasiak says:

    Why don’t we at least attempt to win alls states? And what message are you sending Democrats in Texas, Idaho and Utah?

    because the amount of a candidates time, and the amount of money available, is not infinite. Its like doing triage at a disaster site…. you only have so many doctors, ambulances, and resources available, so the people with non-life-threatening injuries don’t get much attention, nor do patients whose injuries are so grave that only a massive amount of effort and resources might or might not save them. The patients that get the attention are the ones whom immediate attention can insure their survival, the ones whose injuries if ignored could be life-threatenting, and the ones who are in pretty bad shape, but who stand a half decent chance of survival if they get treated quickly.

  58. 58
    GSD says:

    I am still shocked that George H. W. Bush, the man who was going to be Hillary Clinton’s goodwill ambassador and who was going to tour the world with Bill Clinton telling everyone just how much an asshole George W. Bush. George H.W. Bush was has endorsed John McCain.

    Shocked, I say.

    -GSD

  59. 59
    Davebo says:

    Again, I get the real politik angle.

    But seriously, what is the point of the campaign coming out and saying this states delegates don’t really “count” while this other states delegates do?

    This has been an ongoing theme of the Clinton campaign for a while, and it’s not just coming from irrelevant campaign underlings.

  60. 60
    p.lukasiak says:

    Re: an Obama landslide…

    I agree, sort of. If Obama gets the nomination, its pretty likely to be a landslide… but IMHO it could be a McCain landslide (if the GOP smear machine is effective) or an Obama landslide (if the GOP smear machine isn’t effective.)

    With Hillary, I’m pretty confident that she’ll win, but the odds of a landslide are vanishingly small if she’s the nominee.

  61. 61

    @p.lukasiak: I fail to see the point of your first post. What does the Democratic primary have to do with the GE? The primary season is NOT a subset of the GE. We get a reset after the nomination and then the fight begins anew. Are you saying that the people who voted for Clinton won’t vote for Obama? Or are you saying that Obama won’t take any red states? Maybe you think Democrats in Blue States should have more say in the nominating process? I don’t understand your argument.

    I prefer Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy. Fight the fuckers on their own turf! With a the possibility of record Democratic turnout coupled with Republicans not be excited about McCain I see only good things happening. Democrats will have an unprecedented fundraising advantage, and the very real opportunity to make this an election that will leave the Republicans in disarray for years.

  62. 62
    PaulW says:

    The entire primary system is screwed. The only ones who run are those who can afford to and who have friends in the ‘nomination chairs’ to make sure they get approved. The delegate selection is uneven from state to state, and some states even vote twice with caucuses AND primaries. And we all end up with candidates we don’t want, spouting party issues we don’t care for, and bringing us self-serving BS we don’t need.

    And it will never get fixed because the PTB in each party prefer the status quo, because it’s their system that they rigged. So we’re screwed. Enjoy.

  63. 63
    Shygetz says:

    13,000 more Idahoans supported Obama than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses, and as a result Obama was awarded 12 more delegates than Clinton. Bush beat Kerry by 38.12 points in 2004. Idaho has 4 electoral college votes.

    111,000 more New Jerseyans supported Clinon than Obama in the New Jersey primaries, and as a result Clinton was awarded 11 more delegates than Obama. Kerry beat Bush by 6.69 points in 2004. New Jersey has 15 electoral college votes.

    For Kerry to have won Idaho’s 4 electoral college votes, 27.9% of Bush voters would have had to vote for Kerry.

    For Bush to have won New Jersey 15 electoral college votes, 6.3% of Kerry voters would have had to vote for Bush.

    So you think it is intellectually honest to alternate between percentages and raw numbers in order to put your candidate in the best light? And you expect to be taken seriously?

  64. 64
    cpl says:

    p.lukasiak must be a comedian, I’m laughing so hard.

    Hillary was so cocky that she decided that 1/2 the nation would simply follow the “Super Tuesday” leader, so she could ignore them. Obama realized that she’d left more delegates behind than she was sure to capture, set out to win those votes, and ran the table.

    But now we’re supposed to buy into the notion that, you see, Hillary’s just getting her ass handed to her because of people and places that just don’t matter, and the important thing is that she’s really doing a bang-up job in those places that do matter.

    Where have we seen this before? Oh, right, it’s Bush’s explanation of how everything is going so well in Iraq.

  65. 65
    p.lukasiak says:

    But seriously, what is the point of the campaign coming out and saying this states delegates don’t really “count” while this other states delegates do?

    “The campaign” didn’t come out an say it — the michigan co-chair did.

    And it was an exceedingly stupid way to put the argument…

    Its almost as stupid as making an issue of a state co-chair saying something in a way that the campaign itself would NEVER approve of….

  66. 66
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    because the amount of a candidates time, and the amount of money available, is not infinite. Its like doing triage at a disaster site…. you only have so many doctors, ambulances, and resources available, so the people with non-life-threatening injuries don’t get much attention, nor do patients whose injuries are so grave that only a massive amount of effort and resources might or might not save them. The patients that get the attention are the ones whom immediate attention can insure their survival, the ones whose injuries if ignored could be life-threatenting, and the ones who are in pretty bad shape, but who stand a half decent chance of survival if they get treated quickly.

    You know what’s fun about triage sites? The government officials that handle the situation don’t necessarily get graded for their “best effort”, and they rarely get gold stars.

    The patients with non-life-threatening injuries that get bumped to the back of the line still get pissed off, and still vote at the next election.

    The delegates that aren’t “important” (using p luk’s context), will still, in fact, vote. And their votes will still count. Actually, they’ll count as much as everyone else’s vote.

    I’m amazed that these Clinton hacks keep running with this meme that’s faulty on its face. We know that delegates count, and we know why they count. Their votes count, and there’s no other rubric. Do these pricks actually think we’ve been holding them at an abnormally high regard? As if they can slip a couple of lies past us _before_ we notice they’re dicking us around.

    Laughable. Pathetic.

  67. 67
  68. 68

    I don’t get the realpolitik angle.

    Obama won Washington going away, in the end, so maybe I can’t see the forest for the trees…but can you see the state going red if Clinton gets the nom? No, luk, you can’t. Similarly, neither Oregon, nor California will go red if Obama gets the nod. Nor New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine…

    Get off the second class state bullshit. You can argue about Texas, Kansas, or these other states where she’s cratered and which will never vote Dem, if you want, but there’s no credible argument that Obama won’t walk away with all the Blue states. You’re trying to change the subject, and you shouldn’t expect to come to BJuice and not have that noticed.

  69. 69

    TGP — yes, he’s *that* p.lukasiak. Paul’s a fascinating character, and I’m still trying to figure out why he’s backing Clinton. I’d have put him down as a hard-core Edwardsite. I can’t see him on the MUP, though.

  70. 70
    Zifnab says:

    The entire primary system is screwed. The only ones who run are those who can afford to and who have friends in the ‘nomination chairs’ to make sure they get approved. The delegate selection is uneven from state to state, and some states even vote twice with caucuses AND primaries. And we all end up with candidates we don’t want, spouting party issues we don’t care for, and bringing us self-serving BS we don’t need.

    And it will never get fixed because the PTB in each party prefer the status quo, because it’s their system that they rigged. So we’re screwed. Enjoy.

    Barack Obama transcends all that.

  71. 71
    norbizness says:

    I’d rather roll the dice for a landslide and potentially burying the GOP for about 20 years or so. Also, I think certain states should have negative electoral votes: Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, for instance. It’s more subversive than Grandpa Simpson’s idea of just eliminating them because there are too many to remember.

  72. 72
    Svensker says:

    It was boneheaded of me to consider using the word mandate. I should have used the more-accepted word persondate. Please understand that my poor choice of words was only that, and I do not wish to denigrate women nor womandates.

    Thank you.

    Please. The word “women” is blatantly sexist. From now on: “wopersons”.

  73. 73
    demkat620 says:

    Well I live in PA. And if in this reality I wind up mattering, I think I’d like to move to a parallel universe where I don’t. Watching Lanny Davis try to spin this Obama/Patrick thing into a high crime was gag inducing. Does Hillary get that this is exactly the type of behavior that turns people off to her?

    This will be just great. An election where both sides hate their candidates and nobody really cares who wins.

    Ain’t democracy grand?

  74. 74

    TGP —yes, he’s that p.lukasiak.

    Thanks for the info.

    Why are Clinton supporters and staffers sounding so desperate? Jesus Babbling Christ! I have been typing this same shit all day. Wisconsin is still close, and she has a lead in TX, OH and PA. WTF? What am I missing?

  75. 75
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Please. The word “women” is blatantly sexist. From now on: “wopersons”.

    I had my communications director look into that. He said that word is still in development in NOW Laboratories. They said _wopersons_ scored a 73% on the Bobbitt Scale, but they think they can do better with _woperdaughters._ They said they’d release their thesis sometime by the end of this month.

  76. 76
    John Cole says:

    TGP —yes, he’s that p.lukasiak.

    Yes, and he is welcome here, so please no personal attacks.

  77. 77
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Why are Clinton supporters and staffers sounding so desperate? Jesus Babbling Christ! I have been typing this same shit all day. Wisconsin is still close, and she has a lead in TX, OH and PA. WTF? What am I missing?

    Um, that Clinton is poorly performing and thus their efforts are poorly focused?

    I’m not sure where you’re confused… Is it creating cognitive dissonance that Clinton might be terrible at this?

    I mean, really, speaking as a coddled, White, careerist schmuck, it’s not hard for me to see that Hillary, as a coddled, White, careerist schmuck, is getting her ass handed to her by a half-Black, travelled activist.

    Maybe its hindsight bias, but after Obama’s presumed novice status evaporated, it seems pretty obvious to me. Especially since the Democrats are the party of activists.

  78. 78
    demkat620 says:

    Why are Clinton supporters and staffers sounding so desperate? Jesus Babbling Christ! I have been typing this same shit all day. Wisconsin is still close, and she has a lead in TX, OH and PA. WTF? What am I missing?

    The campaign internals. I suspect they are not flattering to Senator Clinton right now. And I would really be disappointed to see her run a scorched earth campaign.

  79. 79
    zzyzx says:

    I’m never a fan of personal attacks, but I imagine some of us might have a few questions about the methodology of that article…

  80. 80

    Sorry, John — I genuinely didn’t mean to lodge an attack against paul, although given my history, I can see why you’d think I was. I trying — with absolutely no success — to echo the tone I’d heard in TGP’s original question.

    Hey, Paul? Why *are* you backing Clinton? I’d have thought you more likely to wind up backing Edwards…why Hillary?

  81. 81
    Wilfred says:

    actually, as I’ve said previously (i think it was a thread here, but I’m not sure) Texas is not important. But in fact, I may have been wrong about that.

    Mighty generous of you to say so, P.L.

    Sorry, I think he is too cleaver by half.

    Eldridge or Beaver?

  82. 82

    I would really be disappointed to see her run a scorched earth campaign.

    Me, too. It’s not worth fighting to the bitter end here.

  83. 83
    p.lukasiak says:

    @p.lukasiak: I fail to see the point of your first post. What does the Democratic primary have to do with the GE? The primary season is NOT a subset of the GE. We get a reset after the nomination and then the fight begins anew. Are you saying that the people who voted for Clinton won’t vote for Obama? Or are you saying that Obama won’t take any red states? Maybe you think Democrats in Blue States should have more say in the nominating process? I don’t understand your argument.

    GP… to a very large extent, I agree with your point regarding primaries — in fact, thta is my main point. in my initial response, I was trying to explain that there was a perfectly good rationale behind the Michigan co-chair’s moronic statement.

    My main argument is that if no one has a truly decisive lead at the end of the primary season, the decision of the super-delegates should have nothing to do with the primary results (exit polling data from each state should be used to inform their decision, but that’s about it.)

    Instead, the super-delegates should look at the electoral college map, and decide which candidate they think has the best chance of winning in November — and if that’s pretty equal, which candidate would make the best President.

    Its a complicated decision — and includes factors that we don’t even know about yet, like who McCain will choose for a running mate. Unlike in most elections, I think the GOP running mate decision is going to be crucial in determining the nature of the best Dem ticket. If McCain picks Huckabee, we can forget about the deep south, if he doesn’t resentment among the Xtian conservatives could make some otherwise uncompetitive states worth competing in — if Obama were the nominee. An Obama nomination would be even more sense if McCain were to pick someone like Michael Steele, making ‘dog whistle’ racial politics far less of a factor, and Obama at the top of the ticket would be needed to prevent a defection of a significant portion of the black vote from the Democrats.

    I prefer Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy.

    with all due respect, I think you don’t understand what that strategy is. When Dean took over the DNC, in a whole lot of states the Democratic Party organization existed only on paper — the 50 State Strategy is about using DNC resources to build party organization in all 50 states (rather than spend money on individual contests) in order to make the democrats competitive everywhere over the long haul. Its not at all about using DNC resources to contest every state in a presidential election — in those states where Dems aren’t competitive, its about building the party from the ground up so that, in the future, Democrats CAN compete in those states.

  84. 84
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    I think with Obama at the head of the ticket, even Texas can fall to the Democrats in ‘08.

    Which would be … I don’t think I can describe it. The primary would be one thing, but thinking about the state of Texas actually electing a black man for President … that would be an historical moment to rival Neil Armstrong’s one small step.

    Which is why I’m not letting myself get too hopeful. This is Texas, after all; when given a choice, we always pick wrong. Molly didn’t call us the “National Laboratory for Bad Government” for nothing.

  85. 85
    Davebo says:

    “The campaign” didn’t come out an say it—the michigan co-chair did.

    Well it’s not exactly 180 degrees off from what the campaigns chief strategist has been saying.

    “”Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states- outside of Illinois?”

    I’m sorry, but we aren’t talking about some envelope stuffer here.

  86. 86

    I mean, really, speaking as a coddled, White, careerist schmuck, it’s not hard for me to see that Hillary, as a coddled, White, careerist schmuck, is getting her ass handed to her by a half-Black, travelled activist.

    I guess I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion. I spent most of my adult life as a “show me the money!” kinda guy. Don’t count your chickens and all that. Things look good for Obama, but I prefer to let the data (votes) speak for itself.

    The campaign internals. I suspect they are not flattering to Senator Clinton right now.

    My suspicion as well, but as I just said I’m waiting for the votes to be counted.

    Yes, and he is welcome here, so please no personal attacks.

    Word. Not nearly as entertaining as refuting his post over at Taylor Marsh.

  87. 87
    tBone says:

    Its not at all about using DNC resources to contest every state in a presidential election—in those states where Dems aren’t competitive, its about building the party from the ground up so that, in the future, Democrats CAN compete in those states.

    Who’s talking about using DNC resources in those states? I’d settle for not being told to fuck off because my vote doesn’t count, thanks.

    Saying that states “should be ignored”, whatever the rationale, is not the way to build the party from the ground up. It is, in fact, the exact opposite.

  88. 88
    Jon H says:

    p_luk wrote: “Its not at all about using DNC resources to contest every state in a presidential election—in those states where Dems aren’t competitive, its about building the party from the ground up so that, in the future, Democrats CAN compete in those states.”

    I expect those newly-formed party organizations need to be exercised, otherwise they’ll atrophy like unused muscles.

    Treating them as unimportant backwater states that don’t count is no way to maintain Democratic participation and enthusiasm.

    Campaigning in red states will also help under-ticket pols, making it more likely that they’ll manage to get elected, even if the state goes for the Republican for President.

  89. 89
    Fausto Carmona says:

    Do p.luk and Joel Ferguson realize they’re writing campaign commercials for John McCain?

    “Hillary Clinton and her supporters think you live in a second-class state. John McCain, however…”

  90. 90
    p.lukasiak says:

    TGP —yes, he’s that p.lukasiak. Paul’s a fascinating character, and I’m still trying to figure out why he’s backing Clinton. I’d have put him down as a hard-core Edwardsite. I can’t see him on the MUP, though.

    When this campaign started over a year ago, I was in the “anyone but Hillary” camp. I was undecided, but favoring either Richardson or Edwards. I decided on Edwards after watching Richardson’s abysmal performance in the early debates.

    I’m still and edwards supporter — my dream ticket would be Edwards/Obama, and I hope that the superdelegates and party leaders would consider that.

    But when it came down to the choice between Obama and Clinton, I had to go with Clinton. Not because I agree with her more — I don’t — but because I think she’s a less risky choice, both in terms of the GE, and in terms of being President. In 2000, I would have supported an Obama-like candidate, because the country was in great shape, and he would lead the country in the direction I wanted it to go in. In 2016, I’ll probably be happy to support an Obama candidacy, because by then he’ll know how Washington really works. But right now, the country is broken, and needs to be fixed, and IMHO between the two Hillary is the person who I think can fix it.

  91. 91

    … I think you don’t understand what that strategy is.

    I do understand it. What I failed to do was edit to better make my point that I think a 50 state strategy (not unlike Deans) would force the Republicans to contest every state in the GE. With unprecedented fundraising by the Democrats this is a real opportunity no matter who the nominee might be.

    I would be curious to know if you have done any data collection on turnout. In particular, for new and first time voters. How much of this turnout can be attributed to the candidates (individually) and how much can be attributed to how much is a response to the last 7 years of the Bush Administration? I’ve only seen many references to what is driving but very little in the way of actual data.

  92. 92
    zzyzx says:

    But right now, the country is broken, and needs to be fixed, and IMHO between the two Hillary is the person who I think can fix it.

    See, for me, a lot of the problem is the divisiveness and constant fighting over every single issue. I can’t see Clinton fixing that and therefore I doubt that she’d be able to get much done. Obama would at least have a honeymoon period.

  93. 93
    Jody says:

    Ya know, I’ve been quick to defend the Clintons against what I feel are scurrilous, personal, or sexist attacks.

    But yeah, this was outta line.

  94. 94
    p.lukasiak says:

    Davebo Says:
    Well it’s not exactly 180 degrees off from what the campaigns chief strategist has been saying. “”Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states- outside of Illinois?”

    If you’re looking for a defense of Mark Penn, please look elsewhere. As a strategist, he’s been completely out-classed by Axelrod, and as a spokesperson for the campaign, he’s a disaster. The Penn quote above isn’t just a stupid thing to say, its dead wrong — when he said it, Obama had won in Washington State, Iowa, Missouri, and Virginia — all states that will be significant in the general election.

  95. 95
    Jon H says:

    “As a strategist, he’s been completely out-classed by Axelrod”

    And you think Clinton can beat McCain, with this kind of help?

  96. 96
    jrg says:

    “”Superdelegates are not second-class delegates,” Ferguson said. “The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic.”“

    Yeah, that’s a pretty Rovian thing to say. From the tactical standpoint of the 2008 elections, what Ferguson says is true, but he should not say it in public.

    We need a Democrat who can lead the country, not just the Blue states. To say otherwise invokes division and might put a lot of local elections in jeopardy. To act otherwise without saying it? That might be a different story.

  97. 97
    KG says:

    For all the talk of safe blue states by the Clintons, they might want to take a quick look at this election eve poll in Cali.

    Clinton 45
    McCain 43
    Undecided 12

    Obama 47
    McCain 40
    Undecided 13

    That’s from Field, the only poll you really need to pay attention to in California. Clinton, as it stands, has a fairly decent chance of losing California’s 56 electoral votes. There is no way that she can make up that loss anywhere else in the country.

    Sure, a lot can change, but as it stand right now… any resources that she has to spend in what should be a solidly blue state like California (at least according the the MSM conventional wisdom), are resources that she can’t spend in purple states. Of course, if McCain is stupid enough to do what W did and writes off California, it won’t matter. There are simply too many things running against Hillary Clinton for this to be anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Of course, all this presupposes that both parties actually have something that represents a 50-state plan.

  98. 98
    p.lukasiak says:

    I would be curious to know if you have done any data collection on turnout. In particular, for new and first time voters. How much of this turnout can be attributed to the candidates (individually) and how much can be attributed to how much is a response to the last 7 years of the Bush Administration? I’ve only seen many references to what is driving but very little in the way of actual data.

    except for a few exceptions, the exit polls don’t ask about “first time voters”, so no real analysis is possible by someone sitting at home in their jammies staring at a computer screen.

    And while I haven’t made a formal effort to look at these numbers, what I have looked at tells me that its certainly true that Obama is bringing in lots of first time caucus participants — caucus participation is WAY up everywhere, and Obama is reaping the benefits (for example, four times as many people showed up for the Dem caucuses in Idaho than in 2004 — and Obama was supported by 79% of caucus participants.)

    Conventional wisdom has it that Obama is bringing in lots of new voters. That’s probably correct, but in terms of turnout, the real story is that both candidates are doing a great job of turning out their supporters in important primary states. In general (ie with exception), the number of people voting in democratic primaries this year is about 2/3 of the vote Kerry received in the states during the GE in 2004. Based on what I’ve looked at, primary voters were about 2/5 of Kerry’s total votes in each state

    (this is one of the thing I do want to look at in a more organized fashion at some point, btw.)

    I also agree that one of the reasons that candidates have been so successful with their GOTV drives is digust with the Bush administration — that disgust makes it much easier to get people to the polls to register their desire for an change in direction for the country.

  99. 99
    p.lukasiak says:

    oops..this

    Based on what I’ve looked at, primary voters were about 2/5 of Kerry’s total votes in each state

    should read

    Based on what I’ve looked at, 2004 democratic primary voters were about 2/5 of Kerry’s total votes in each state in the GE

  100. 100
    cleek says:

    Based on what I’ve looked at, 2004 democratic primary voters were about 2/5 of Kerry’s total votes in each state in the GE

    Kerry’s not running. Bush isn’t running. this isn’t 2004.

  101. 101
    p.lukasiak says:

    And you think Clinton can beat McCain, with this kind of help?

    possibly, if the Clinton campaign can muzzle the jerk.

    If you look at what the clinton campaign has been doing, it looks an awful lot like a general election campaign — put all your eggs in a “one day” basket (in this case, super tuesday), and concentrate on winning states with a lot of electoral college votes.

    And, if super-tuesday had been a ‘general election’ winner take all type of contest, Clinton would have done far better than Obama. But since the primary season isn’t the least bit like the general election, its really a stupid strategy to pursue in a competetive race.

  102. 102

    @ Davebo, February 18th, 2008 at 7:05 pm:

    Well it’s not exactly 180 degrees off from what the campaigns chief strategist has been saying.

    Indeed, I would imagine the Michigan Co-Chair was floating it as a trial balloon. If it gets shot down, they can disavow it as just some crank in Michigan.

  103. 103
    Pb says:

    p.lukasiak,

    when it came down to the choice between Obama and Clinton, I had to go with Clinton. Not because I agree with her more—I don’t—but because I think she’s a less risky choice, both in terms of the GE, and in terms of being President.

    Maybe you could have convinced me of that a few months ago, but lately it seems that the Clinton campaign and the primary voters have been dead set on proving you wrong. At this point, I don’t think it’s likely that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination, but if she somehow did, and beat McCain, I don’t think her Presidency would end up being nearly as effective–I think we’d end up with less seats in Congress than we’d have otherwise, and past that, I don’t think she’d have as much support in Congress either; I know for a fact she’d energize the opposition; and given her current disaster of a primary campaign, the hacks she still listens to, and the tone-deaf crap they’re putting out every single day, I’d have very little confidence in who she’d bring to the next Clinton administration, or how she’d run it.

    In short, it seems that whatever ‘experience’ she’s had has been the wrong experience, and her performance here has greatly called into question her judgement.

    P.S. You mentioned that Bush beat Kerry 68.5% – 30.3% in Idaho, but you forgot to mention that other margin–that Obama beat Hillary 80% – 17% in Idaho. Of the two, who do you think would be more likely to pick up seats there? Now play that argument out around the map.

  104. 104
    Chris Johnson says:

    This may sound like an insane thing to say, but…

    These are public servants, there to represent the people in ALL the states.

    Gamesmanship doesn’t change that.

    If you want to play us-vs-them THAT BADLY, please come up with plans for secession- I’ve looked over the situation for that and it was very interesting from the POV of a blue stater! We’d have all kinds of cool resources.

    In the absence of a plan to break the Union and make Red Country and Blue Country, STFU and start wrapping your head around this idea:

    The reason Obama’s memes are so hot right now is that everybody, red or blue, are sick to death of playing us-against-them so hard that you don’t even talk to your enemies, much less negotiate. We are ALL sick of that. It was brought to a fine art by Karl Rove, it carried the day for a while, and it’s now broken.

    It is too obvious that playing us-and-them is leading to collapse, destruction, and hopelessness. Both the red and blue staters are sick of it.

    Obama needs to not only care about Democrats in red states, he has to consider even the Republicans, not simply act like the mirror Karl Rove.

    Hillary Clinton is already writing off even Democrats that happen to not live in the right place, because to her winning is more important than being a public servant, which is exactly what the Republicans always said about her and exactly what their guys have been doing for years.

    ENOUGH.

    I don’t care if you laugh at my disdain for realpolitik, and I won’t be impressed if you manage to use it to win. Isn’t that the point? Just winning is not enough. Just winning doesn’t solve anything, and we have to do better than that.

    I would’ve believed Hillary was capable of being an actual President and different from the Bush crowd, but not anymore. Her attitude is fundamentally wrong, and she needs to stay where she is.

  105. 105
    The Other Steve says:

    And, if super-tuesday had been a ‘general election’ winner take all type of contest, Clinton would have done far better than Obama.

    And if life was fair, I’d have a Pony!

  106. 106
    bwaage says:

    And, if super-tuesday had been a ‘general election’ winner take all type of contest, Clinton would have done far better than Obama. But since the primary season isn’t the least bit like the general election, its really a stupid strategy to pursue in a competetive race.

    I don’t know about the ‘just super tuesday’ results, but if every contest were winner take all Obama would still have a lead and the results would look like this:

    Proportional vs. Winner take all

  107. 107
    OriGuy says:

    If you’re looking for a defense of Mark Penn, please look elsewhere. As a strategist, he’s been completely out-classed by Axelrod, and as a spokesperson for the campaign, he’s a disaster. The Penn quote above isn’t just a stupid thing to say, its dead wrong—when he said it, Obama had won in Washington State, Iowa, Missouri, and Virginia—all states that will be significant in the general election.

    So why is he still employed? One of the (many) things that bugs me about GWB is his tolerance for blatant incompetence; Clinton isn’t looking any better. People have been saying for weeks that Penn should go, what is she waiting for?

  108. 108
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I know I am sick and tired of the division and hatred between both sides, and I think Obama is the one that can change the tone in Washington D.C. Obama is running on a plan that says he wants to represent all of America, and Hillary is running on a plan where she wins with 50+1%.

    Who is more likely to work with everyone that wants to work with them? Who is going to have a lot of clout if they pull off a massive GE win? It is not Hillary, that is for sure.

    If Hillary wins the GE, she starts out at third down, 99 yards to go, half of the league lined up against her and half of the audience hating her. If Obama wins, he starts out at first down with ten yards to go. Who do you think has a better chance of attaining their goal?

    Hillary is plainly divisive, as her campaign shows, and if she wins the GE she is going to be even more divisive. We will hear nothing but ‘Clinton this’ and ‘Clinton that’ for the next 4/8 years. I am Bushed with Clinton, and I would like the name to recede into history (Bush too, but in to infamy, not history).

    Unless Obama has a ‘dead girl or live boy’ moment, he has my vote. I want some semblance of sanity to return to our government.

    O-men ;)

  109. 109
    p.lukasiak says:

    So why is he still employed? One of the (many) things that bugs me about GWB is his tolerance for blatant incompetence; Clinton isn’t looking any better. People have been saying for weeks that Penn should go, what is she waiting for?

    Well, first off, I don’t think that anyone in Clinton’s top heavy organization really disagreed with the overall strategy that Penn was responsible for — or if they did, it was given little attention (that’s why Solis had to go — as campaign manager it was her job make sure that adjustments were made based on events. As chief strategist, Penn’s job was to make decisions within the parameters of the agreed upon strategy — and he achieved the goals that had been set for him.)

    Secondly, the Clinton campaign is in trouble, but not in crisis. Getting rid of Penn right away in addition to Solis would create more problems in the campaign than it solved at a time when the campaign needs focus, not chaos.

    (Indeed, I think that the March 4 strategy may already have taken a change for the better — if the campaign is paying more attention to Vermont and Rhode Island, and less to Texas. If Hillary can win big in Ohio, win in VT and RI, and stay close in Texas, she’d be in better shape than a close win in Texas, and losses in VT and RI.)

    The big problem with Penn is his mouth — he has to be muzzled, not just “in public”, but in talking to reporters “off the record”. If Hillary does well on March 4, then I’d keep him (but muzzled).

  110. 110
    les says:

    I think the whole red/blue state approach is outdated and potentially a loser. I’m sitting here in Kansas, apparently regarded as bright red; I have a democratic governor in her second term, and a couple of democratic congressmen; I see the local rethugs purging their party of anyone remotely moderate, requiring loyalty oaths, driving qualified local and state candidates to the Dems; and people tired of being written off. The Hilary/DLC approach is short term stupid and long term suicide, if we want to actually see progressive policies in this country.

  111. 111
    Zifnab says:

    So why is he still employed? One of the (many) things that bugs me about GWB is his tolerance for blatant incompetence; Clinton isn’t looking any better. People have been saying for weeks that Penn should go, what is she waiting for?

    He’s a “friend” of the campaign. And you don’t fire your friends, no matter how incompetent or inconsistent or wrong those friends become.

    Same reason it took ages plus a Congressional inquiry to jettison Rumsfeld and Gonzales. Bush wouldn’t have done it alone, but I’m betting the Congressional Republicans were getting really sick and tired of watching those two have their asses dragged up to Capital Hill over and over again.

    Every time Specter had to pitch a bunch of hard-nosed questions, then vote against his own statements, he lost a few more votes in Pennsylvannia. And after he watched Santorum eat dirt, I think he was beginning to worry about job security. Same with McCain and Snowe and the rest of the “moderate” Republicans.

    Eventually, someone’s going to have to tazer Hillary into realizing that Penn is costing her votes every time he opens his yap. But since Penn is her lead campaign manager, I’m betting she’s never going to see the poll that shows him as the albatross shaped anchor around her neck.

  112. 112
    jj says:

    if McCain were to pick someone like Michael Steele, making ‘dog whistle’ racial politics far less of a factor, and Obama at the top of the ticket would be needed to prevent a defection of a significant portion of the black vote from the Democrats.

    Oh Please.

    Black voters are not going to vote Republican in meaningful numbers because Michael friggin’ Steele is on McCain’s ticket.

    This is the black man who lost by double digits in his 2006 Maryland senatorial race and in Prince George County, MD; a county that is majority African-American that also happens to have the highest median income for blacks in the entire nation, Steele lost by a margin of over 300%

    If this is the type of advice Hillary Clinton is recieving, no wonder she’s in so much danger of losing.

Comments are closed.